Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:57, 4 February 2010

Archives

Archive 1 - Up to 4 July 2007 Archive 2 - 4 July 2007 to 23 July 2007 Archive 3 - 23 July 2007 to 6 August 2007 Archive 4 - 7 August 2007 to 19 September 2007 Archive 5 - 19 September 2007 to 26 January 2008 Archive 6 - 26 January 2008 to 6 May 2008 Archive 7 - 6 May 2008 to 26 January 2009 Archive 8 - 26 January 2009 to 19 February 2009 Archive 9 - 21 February 2009 to 6 June 2009 Archive 10 - In progress

Anna Anderson now at WP:AN

This is a courtesy note informing you that an issue with which you have been involved is now being discussed at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Anna Anderson. (I mentioned your name, but only as you had past involvement with some of the issues regarding this dispute, not in connection with any wrongdoing on your part.) AlexiusHoratius 04:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Malar (Forgotten Realms)

The article Malar (Forgotten Realms) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable - no third party sourcing

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a little outdated but, uh... why the hell are you telling me about this? To the best of my knowledge, I've never even looked at this article before. Trusilver 19:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For this bit of house keeping. I appreciate all your efforts on the recent changes page as well. Keep up the good work Tiderolls 02:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Userpage Shield
		Please accept this token of appreciation for watching over my talk page. Tiderolls 02:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks for the quick vandalism reverts. cheers :) Trusilver 02:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I was hoping you made it out! I even tried not to leave any notes because I didn't want you to get drawn back in to this nuthouse. Oh well. Too late now! :) I hope all is well with you. Take care and have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

How could you sleep while our beds are burning... And keeping track of which way the water swirls when you flush can get very confusing. Not mention the back trouble that comes with riding around on a wallaby. So it's probably good your back home. I just hope you stashed some of your dough over there, as the American peso is headed south. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

How's the food over there? I have a friend who's thinking of moving down under. Did you try some barramundi and vegemite sandwiches? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Happy Holidays Tru. I hope all is well with you. Keep it real and stay out of trouble. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

take another look before you threaten me with a block

I removed obvious US bias from the article in question - I took it to the talk page, where I saw other editors comments regarding the blatant US bias. Please don't assume that I am a vandal just because I use an IP instead of an account. Seriously, have a look at the article and see if what I did was vandalism and worthy of you threatening me with a block - also if you are going to give "take it to the talk page" as an edit summary, you might want to 1.check if I have actually use the talk page (I have) and 2. use the talk page yourself.

119.173.81.176 (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Next time you blank entire blocks of content how about doing something as revolutionary as maybe... explaining in your edit summary that it was per the talk page. (which it really wasn't the agreement to remove the content seemed to be made between you and... well, you. But that's beside the point) When you are editing from an IP and doing something that is going to set off red flags to anyone watching, it's not a bad idea to go far out of your way to let everyone know what you are doing. Trusilver 08:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was rude. That was uncalled for on my part. I don't think I deserved a block threat, but I have come to expect it when editing with an IP and of course it is my choice to use an IP instead of registering an account. I guess, I should try to get some outside input before making major changes. thanks for the reply and once again, please excuse my tone in the initial message here. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'll remove the warnings. Just keep in mind that depending on the time of the day, there's anywhere from a few to dozens of people with Huggle consoles open watching changes as they are happening, things like large blocks of content being removed trigger red flags which bring it to all of our attentions. When you are doing something like this, be sure to give detailed reasons. You had good intentions, the twenty or so I hit before and after you didn't. :) Have a good evening. Trusilver 09:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good idea for me to go near that article again for a while, or I am likely to find myself the subject of a 3RR report. But can you give me an opinion, please? In general when an article like that has what seems to be a US bias and also is rather POV (the article could be renamed "ATVs in the US are dangerous" in its current state) is the normal action to remove the offending section? It all seems correctly cited, but considering the length of the article it is total overkill. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I would see if you can find a way to simply trim the section down. It DOES look like undue weight is being given to information that's only applicable in the US. Perhaps there's a way to cut the amount of information there down? Trusilver 09:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course I can't ask for immunity from being blocked or anything, but I can ask for your opinion again - I have edited that article three times in the last hour - all three edits were removing the same content - if I were to trim the article right now, do you think that would be likely to result in an ANI report and block? My feeling is that it would. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't notice your comment last night. I guess the point is pretty moot now, but I don't think it would be a big deal. I certainly wouldn't consider it a 3RR violation. Trusilver 19:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I checked the history of that article and found that due to vandalism a large amount of stuff was removed, I have put the removed items back - this does not change the POV or US Bias of the article, but it makes it less of an issue as now it does not make up the majority of the article. I am awaiting responses on the talk page to see if people object to having some things removed. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Angus

You twice reverted a small edit I made to the Cristopher Walken page. I provided an edit summary the second time as you requested, but you reverted it again and that time implied my edit was vandalism. I found it odd that you changed your reason. Anyway, I brought it up on that article's discussion page. tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.75.231 (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking should be used to direct a word or phrase to an appropriate article only when it directly relates to article being linked. While the idea of the double entendre is interesting, it is not a direct relation to what you are linking to. If you feel that the information is extremely relevant to the article (I believe it's not, but I won't make a judgment call on that as far as the content of that article goes) then a very brief explanation with a possible link within it would be acceptable. Trusilver 09:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's cool. Thank you very much for clearing that up. tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.75.231 (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ray's RfA

Hmm, thanks for the description of my oppose as "petty crap". Personally, I don't believe that ignoring WP:N and WP:RS in order to push a POV is something that a potential admin should be doing, but obviously your mileage may vary :) Black Kite

You're welcome! Have a good day! Trusilver 19:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

As you had expressed concern that perhaps I was failing to AGF enough regarding a certain editor, I am sure you will be relieved to find out that as I suspected, he was an SPA, COI, POV-pusher - in fact, a sock of Schlafly, whose COI, POV pushing activities have earned him several blocks. It seems I was not failing to AGF enough; I was AGFing a bit too much, as I thought he was merely a meatpuppet, not a sockpuppet. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the message. Trying my best to have fun and to accomplish some meaningful improvements around here. Take care. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Cirque4.jpg

File:Cirque4.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:A Cirque du Soleil clown at the Mirage Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Cirque5.jpg is now available as Commons:File:An acrobat performing in the contortion act of Cirque du Soleil's Nouvelle Expérience, 1994.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello there

Hi, just wanted to drop by to thank you for your comment in Ironholds' recent RfA. Yours was obviously the straw that broke the camel's back (as mentioned in his withdrawal statement). So here's a token of my gratitude, feel free to remove or revert, I don't much care. Aditya Ex Machina 04:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		To Trusilver, for showing us (or at least those who've forgotten) why RfA is broken, and for helping the oppose section reach its peak of civility and constructive criticism. Aditya Ex Machina 04:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely welcome! I will display this barnstar proudly! I understand that you are probably a product of the "self esteem" movement of the last thirty years or so, so this probably falls on deaf ears, but not everyone is born with the same abilities. When your parents were happily telling you that you can be anything you want to be, they were really lying to you. The skills and abilities that were bestowed upon you are quite different than the ones bestowed upon me, and the ones I have are far different from the ones that the next guy has, and so on, and so on. Ironholds has many admirable skills, and he is capable of a great many functions that I feel he would excel at... but adminship is not one of them. If you felt that I was being uncivil, then I certainly apologize... If you wanted me to say how I really feel, then by all means, let me explain to you. Ironholds is by all means the candidate out of the last 12 months that I feel the most strongly about opposing. He takes a mind-boggling amount of joy in creating and perpetuating bureaucracy, and if there is any situation that has somehow managed to NOT become overly cumbersome and bureaucratic over the last five years or so, Ironholds is waiting there with a shovel to fix that oversight. We have far, far too many people on the project like this already, and rarely does such a person improve when given the mop, it's almost always the exact opposite. If I had one wish on the subject, it's that Ironholds would leave projectspace and not come back. He should go back to writing, doing what he has already proven he can do to tremendous success. I don't say that with malice, I say that because in the long run, he will have a better sense of accomplishment from that than he will ever get as an admin. I wouldn't wish adminship on anyone, it's not the lolipop that so many people think it is.

I have long since graduated from the political bullshit-speak that too many people around here feel the need to use. I am being frank and honest - Ironholds is the last person that should be an admin. Half because he is more valuable elsewhere, half because he is intent on perpetuating a system that is counterproductive to the main reason we are all here... to build an encyclopedia. Trusilver 06:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Perpetuating bureaucracy? How, exactly? Ironholds (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll answer that question on one condition. I have no interest in discussing anything with you if all you intend to do with it is go on a rampage of cyber-martyrdom explaining how you do everything right and despite constant feedback to the contrary (of which, in your defense, not all of it is just) that you are potentially the greatest gift to the admin roster ever. (That's not to suggest you have a tendency to do just that, but it's human nature to project criticism rather than suck it up and do a real self-examination) However, if you are asking the question as an interest in a totally honest (and painfully frank) appraisal of your abilities, I would be more than happy to. But ONLY on that condition, because otherwise it's just a waste of both of our time. Trusilver 09:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

None of those things crossed my mind; I'm just interested how I can be said to perpetuate a bureaucracy. I don't think I do through my actions, but we're all fallible; I've probably missed something crucial. Ironholds (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I will send you an email tomorrow. Not because anything I have to say isn't public knowledge, but just because I'd rather the club I use to beat you over the head with not be used by other people to beat you over the head with. But in the mean time, I'm about two hours past when I should have gone to sleep. I do see you puttering around improving articles tonight, it's good to see. It's only my opinion, and unfortunately not shared by all, but I think correcting one typo in the encyclopedia is more valuable than six hours of time discussing the minutia of policy, or ramping up noticeboard drama. Trusilver 09:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks

Thanks for being involved. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no clue what prompted that, but thank you very much and have a great evening :) Trusilver 03:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Profoundly honored (Tru-perfection)

re - The Socratic Barnstar.

Profoundly honored. Perfect beyond words .

I will be smiling with radiant light surrounding me for some time to come ... generating many iterations and variations from strangers of: "Whyfore art thou smiling, sir?" And I will tell them of Trusilver's bestowal. (Too much? :-) (Just right.) Proofreader77 19:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome. And it may be arrogant of me to say so, but I think it's the most correctly applied Socratic Barnstar ever. Trusilver 21:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

True and false. LoL (For the false part do a rhetorical analysis of Socrates speech at his trial ... which resulted in more voting for death than for guilty (I would tend to have given a different speech if my own patootie was on the line rather than, e.g., CoM)— for the true part, hmmm, looks like pretty much what I did, too, in this case. (Smells like siteban, yes?) SO: TRUE! :-)

P.S. My father was an Army pilot ... very lucky ... once in Vietnam a copter on the right and a copter on the left both were taken out ... and a large bullet hit the pilot's seat armor my father was sitting on ... the bullet got half way through and hung ... with the tip near my dad's balls. Lucky guy.

Hail pilots! Hail honor. Bless you for your words today, and your service for us all. -- Proofreader77 02:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I flew KC-10's and KC-135's. I've only been shot at once that I am aware of, and it was shortly after takeoff. We were usually at an altitude that put us out of reach from what served as Iraqi air defense. Trusilver 04:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just thinking how wonderful it is to talk on Misplaced Pages ... where you can usually link to what you're talking about. Delightful to be able to just click and see what you flew (Thanks! Dad was obviously flying a Huey ... My only personal story was my father stuck me in a flight suit one day on a very small Army base ... and took me up in a Beaver ... and I found this tube and funnel stuck on the wall, and thought it was something to talk into. Dad explained that my lips should not be there. LoL That completes my military flight experience. :-) Again, bless you for all. I am having a truly miraculous time right now ... and you lifted it another notch. Salute. (Even if I don't have a right — but kissing a latrine tube should earn one exemption to the rules. LoL) P.S. I remember dad also flew Mohawks ... I had a very expensively molded solid plastic one of those once upon a time... Proofreader77 12:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Signatories

Well, no one can argue you don't keep impressive company. It's taken ages to get anyone onboard at my Signature Page. I guess people are getting choosey about what they sign on to these days? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar (2009 movie)

Trusilver,

Following suggestions by some other editors, I slightly modified the statement about Hindu concerns over Avatar title that you had previously supported. May I ask you if your support still holds with the update. I know it's grown by two extra lines, but it reads more notable and objective now. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page. Thank you for the heads up. Trusilver 04:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have quoted google hits as a possible gauge of notability. Please have a look if you have time. As I wrote there, I would be happy to go back to the two-liner that you previously supported, if it helps break the deadlock. Cinosaur (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Na'vi article?

Hey Trusilver,

Na'vi was a new article that was recently made and I'm not sure if this should be proposed for merge or deletion with either the main article or the daughter article (Fictional universe in Avatar). It simply restates for the most part what is in the daughter article anyway. I was wondering what you thought about it. Thanks. DrNegative (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be merged with the parent article with a redirect. There is very, very little sourceable information on the Na'vi at this point, as the fictional universe expands, I can see a point where there might be reason to have a separate article. But unless the parent gets too big, I don't see any point yet in tearing it apart. Trusilver 06:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Plot bloat and cleanup

Trusilver, would you not mind commenting in the above linked discussion? You are experienced on GA and FA status issues, and another opinion on this matter is needed. I need more direction on what to do about the Cast section. Flyer22 (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You caught me on my way to bed, but I will take a look at it in the morning :) Trusilver 08:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Always appreciate when someone tells me I am being talked about. Ikip 03:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the heads up. I already had a couple people let me know about it, and Lara herself sent an email letting me know about it. I still haven't read it, I just filed it away under my "I couldn't give a shit" file. (damn that thing fills up so quick!) Some people are in no position to be critical about anyone, anywhere. Trusilver 01:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:adminship

You removed my vandel report

You wrote, "removed one old report, list NOT clear." Can you expand on this please. I believe I was very clear. Thanks. --Neon Sky (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Commented on your talk page. I suggest you read the header on WP:AIV. Trusilver 17:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You clearly have not investigated thoroughly. My concern is in regards to him deleting information and later updating unflattering image; two topics that have been discussed since the 11 of December, most recently since the 9th of January. He has not replied to my comments/questions on the deletion of information in the talk page. You should really go to the page and read the events dating back to the 9th of this month. He made continual removals of valid information without justification or acknolwedgment. Posting decision on vandelism is a serious job and you should not take it lightly. --Neon Sky (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon Sky (talk • contribs)

There are no threats. If you see any legitimate threats, please let me know by copying and pasting them on my talkpage. Otherwise, please do not make slanderous comments against me when I have made sincere efforts to follow the WP civility rules and acted in good faith. I reiterate, I took the time to read WP rules on civility, good faith, deletion of contect, vandelism, etc. and believe I am acting fairly.

Pristino uses tactics of dodging dialgue and soon playing the victim. If you read all of my posts and consider the timeline, you will see that when all is in context, I have been absolutely diplomatic, even in the face of being continually deleted by him. --Neon Sky (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will do that next time he dodges diaolgue. I also wanted to add this link to the one you posted on my page so that it will be in abslute context. ] Thanks for taking the time and for the advise. --Neon Sky (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Block of user 63.116.149.147

Thanks for sorting that. Incidentally, your user page makes for interesting, and painfully true reading. You should nominate it for 'featured page status': people won't be buying a pig in a poke then when they consider getting involved with wikipedia, so to speak. Cheers Fortnum (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

hah! Thanks :) Trusilver 18:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comments on Wiki Politics

I am new to Wiki; as I'm sure you noticed. I just read your user page and found myself completely relating to your daughter. My third day using Wiki, I stepped into a big pile of Wiki politics and almost didn't come back. I asked an admin for "mentoring" only to receive an adament denial that any politics take place here. I chuckled and looked the other way. At that point, I decided to keep to myself and as in life, choose my battles carefully. Life is complicated enough, but moreso, I didn't want to divert from what attracted me Wiki: the just plain enjoyment I get from researching, writing and editing. I contemplated the life of the admin, and it takes a special personality to do just that, administer (mental image of a desk and an ankle cuffs). Admins are important. Yes, some, just as in the real world, abuse power. Just like some "authors" are idiots. I have decided to stick around for the love of the creativity. That said, I'm glad there are personalities out there willing to do the admin work.

Moreso than sharing this with you, I was itching to get it out there somehow. To say, "Yes, there are politics in Wiki. Hell yes." Sorry to your page for being the stage, thank you to your page for being the stage... if that makes sense. Now, closure. Moving on. --Neon Sky (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

/laughs/ Yes. Anyone who suggests that Misplaced Pages is not governed by its own internal politicking is either naive or a liar. The best administrators are the ones that curse the day they got the extra buttons, the worst are the ones that see their power as a medal of honor. I don't always succeed, but I try hard to be the former. I do try to tell every new person with a problem to stick it out, the problem children of wikipedia are a veryvocal minority, but they ARE a minority. There are far more excellent editors here than there are drama-makers and wannabe politicians. Trusilver 20:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar Critical reception rewrite

Trusilver, thanks for your contribution on Avatar. Following some editors' suggestions, I have proposed a restructured Critical reception section for discussion here, hoping to try and accommodate a deeper and more balanced coverage of the film internationally. Please have a look. I hope we can resolve this impasse and work out something everybody or most will be happy with. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

LustyRoars

Hi. User:LustyRoars continues to make disruptive edits. Isn't it time for a block? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed this editor's contributions, and he does occasionally make substantive edits. Because of this, I'm not going to block them outright as a vandalism-only account. They have made no further edits after the last warning, so I'm just going to add the user to my watchlist and se what happens. Thanks for letting me know. Trusilver 01:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverts for the Ikonboard Page

Hi, Trusilver! I noticed the reverts being made on the Ikonboard page on the recent changes page, and I looked up the Ikonboard website. Apparently, the publisher is listed as "Geek Layer Web Services Inc". It can be found here at the bottom of the page.

Thanks!

L337*P4wn 04:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been reading up on it for the last five minutes. Thanks for letting me know :) Trusilver 04:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem! :) L337*P4wn 04:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the user you banned for the various editing of the Ikonboard article is back using another IP. At a glance this IP has been used in the past for editing/blanking its talk page. Brollachan (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that. I have him on my watchlist for WP:COI issues. I'm going to wait a while and see what happens. Thanks for letting me know. Trusilver 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request from User talk:71.48.23.4

Howdy Trusilver, hope you're well. :) This IP is requesting an unblock, and as you're the blocking admin, I'm giving you a heads-up. Thanks! GlassCobra 07:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey GC :) I just came across your name earlier today and was meaning to stop by your talk page and say hello. Hope you are doing good :) Trusilver 09:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight thanks

Thanks for becoming involved in GoRight's unblock. I have no comment on the conditions; however, the I believe the indefinite nature of this block has gone on too long. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

GoRight's unblock conditions

While I admire the courage it takes to wade into GoRight's talk page, I'm concerned that the unblock conditions you have proposed do not directly address the concerns raised by 2over0 (or by Viridae, who also indefinitely blocked GoRight in January). In the list of problematic diffs offered by 2over0 (User talk:GoRight#Blocked (2)), none comes from article space. Most are on talk and – especially – Misplaced Pages-space pages. Particularly problematic are the cases where GoRight inserts himself into disputes involving other editors.

I'm going to openly acknowledge the elephant in the room — if GoRight's ability to involve himself in others' disputes remains, he will spend the bulk of his on-wiki time picking fights with WMC, Enric Naval, Tony Sidaway, and a few others with whom he has had historical and/or ongoing difficulties. He sees himself as a crusader (and now martyr) for the 'rights' of a downtrodden minority, with all the benefits and pitfalls such an attitude entails. His talk page comments recently have essentially acknowledged that point. (Here, self-drawn parallel to Rosa Parks(!) here are a couple of samples.)

Leaving him free to argue and insult on talk pages, and to involve himself into others' disputes (as long as he maintains a veneer of civility) pretty much takes us back to where we started. The fact that he wore down 2over0's incredible patience with endless argument and refusal to just get the point is telling — as is the fact that no other administrator wanted to get involved with the three separate {unblock} requests that he's had up on his talk page since 2over0 blocked him originally (links on request; he's had {unblock} templates up for a total of more than two weeks with no takers). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have done a pretty extensive review of GoRight's edits and talk page over the last year, I have a pretty clear picture of the issue. As far as I'm concerned, this is a viable middle ground. As far as I'm concerned, this is a last chance. I won't hesistate to block him again if he doesn't live up to his end of the bargain, but at the same time, neither do I find unnecessary baiting or using his editing restrictions as a weapon against him to be acceptable. We will see how things go. Trusilver 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no harm in a civil attempts to "crusade". However, GoRight should be cautioned to stay focused on productive content outcomes in both a "crusade" and articles themselves. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Trusilver 18:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I also think the unblock conditions miss the point; if anything allowing him to edit the articles and be banned from the talk pages would make more sense, bau that is not possible. Sole Soul (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet more quibbling for you. I'd like For three months, this user will make no edits to any article that is covered under the climate change article probation. clarified. My assumption is that "covered" means "Pages related to Climate change (broadly construed)" per Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation; it doesn't mean just pages tagged with the {{Community article probation|main page=Climate change|] for full information and to review the decision}} header. Is that correct? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&action=history